Po', po' Diebold. Being unAmerican pays well only up to a point, we guess, as the company's stock once again begins to tumble today after a key analyst cuts his rating for the once-great "security" company, citing "possible legislative concerns in the company's voting machines business."

And even as the company continues to misrepresent its products, on its own website, via knowing lies (otherwise known as fraud).

After the voting machine company's spectacular failure over the weekend at the GOP Straw Poll in Iowa --- where anywhere from 10.5% to 32% of the ballots had to be counted by hand after Diebold's machines failed --- it's little surprise that things are coming apart for the company again. The question, however, is how much farther it still has to go and what the hell the company can possibly do about it at this point.

"Investors could increasingly sour on the stock if Diebold does not try to sell the unit," reports Forbes this afternoon as the stock fell some 4.5% to $47.60 today on heavy trading, after falling at least that much since a high near $54 last Thursday.

Good luck selling that clunker of a division, boys. Liabilities much?

The company, which is already under investigation by the SEC, as we reported exactly one year ago today, reportedly for misstatements of revenue concerning its voting machine business, might face even more difficulties once its investors come to fully understand the depth of the fraud which the company seems to still be perpetuating.

Here's just one fresh example of the company's continuing lies, as found on the Diebold Election Systems, Inc., FAQ page on its own website today.

The company claims, incorrectly, that its touch-screen voting systems "insure ballot anonymity" by scrambling "the order of cast ballots"...

That is, of course, a complete and utter lie. At least according to the computer scientists at University of California who studied the matter in CA SoS Debra Bowen's recent "Top-to-Bottom Review" and found precisely the opposite to be true...

in direct contradiction to Diebold's statement on its website, Bowen's independent study of Diebold's voting system source code [PDF] for the Diebold Accuvote TSx touch-screen system, referred to above, found otherwise that ballots were not "scrambled" and thus were easily identifiable to Election Officials who want to find out how you may have voted.

The UC scientists found that, "Both the electronic and paper records of the Diebold AV-TSX contain enough information to compromise the secrecy of the ballot," and that "the AV-TSX records votes in the order in which they are cast, and it records the time that each vote is cast" making it "possible for officials to determine how individuals voted."

From the UC report's Executive Summary...

• Failure to protect ballot secrecy

Both the electronic and paper records of the Diebold AV-TSX contain enough information to compromise the secrecy of the ballot. The AV-TSX records votes in the order in which they are cast, and it records the time that each vote is cast. As a result, it is possible for election workers who have access to the electronic or paper records and who have observed the order in which individuals have cast their ballots to discover how those individuals voted. Moreover, even if this vulnerability is never exploited, the fact that the AV-TSX makes it possible for officials to determine how individuals voted may be detrimental to voter confidence and participation.

As investors are beginning to get the picture, we're still waiting for an Election Official to realize how they've been defrauded by this company (and the others in the same game) so that they might be able to start filing suit and begin to get some of the tax-payers money back after these companies' knowing fraud on American voters.

KnowMore wrote:
I would like to know if Mr. Heaton can tell us anything about Ney, as Chairman of the House Administrative Committee, inviting Mark "Thor" Hearne as spokesman for the "bipartisan" American Center for Voting Rights to testify on March 21, 2005. This was supposed to be, at last, the official hearing on problems with the 2004 election. Legitimate issues Congressman John Conyers, Jr. had presented on January 8th were ignored, while the new subject of "Voter Fraud" became the Republican talking point.

However, Brad Friedman of www.bradblog.com immediately discovered the "catch" --- that Thor Hearne had been THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR BUSH/CHENEY 2004!!! The amazing story of this Republican National Committee scheme to distract from real election irregularities can be found here: http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=4418.

Perhaps Mr. Heaton could also inform us as to the effect that Diebold's $275,000 payment to Abramoff had on Ney's authorship of the Help America Vote Act, which makes us stuck with these COMPLETELY HACKABLE voting machines.

And how crazy/sick is it that this is the company "safekeeping" the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights!! Guess since they're just pesky pieces of paper, we'll be okay. :/

None of the computer voting systems is safe from hacking. ES&S has its own history. And the president of ES&S is the brother of the vice-presidnt of Diebold.
The truth be told, it is impossible to secure any computer that must retain anonymity. Paper ballots are the wave of the future.

There is only one way to conduct a fed. election without any states being disenfranchised by another state (through fraud or incompetence) and that is to have standardized machines, ballots, methods for all FEDERAL elections. This would seperate the Fed. election process from the States' and local processes. There would be 3 choices MAX on any ballot, voting for the President, Senate, and Representative. This can be a simple mechanical machine, built under strict Federal specifications. Machines, machine parts and ballots all have serial numbers and counterfeit-proof measures to prevent fraud and unauthourized duplication.
All serial numbered ballots not cast should be accounted for and documented.

In the current system, or any proposed (other than a completly standardized system) One state thru its bungling, fraudulant operatives, etc. can and will disenfranchise other states when it either comes to the exec. branch or balance of congress. States should be accountible to eachother for a "clean election" when it comes ot Federal elective offices, and the balance of powers thereof.

This will necessitate a seperation of state and local ballot measures, candidates, bond issues, etc, from the FEDERAL election voting implementation means, processes, equipment and materials. In other words, the new fraud-incompetance resistant system proposed here would require that no state and local interference with the seperate voter machine, voting booth, ballots, or even the line you stand in.

In this scenario, FEDERAL ballot measures provided will have much shorter lines, less confusion, more trancparancy and simpler execution, accountibility and authority and records retention.

Federal election polling, should be stand-alone systems, with seperate (shorter lines), machines, voting-booths and ballots than used in the local/State polling.

If States and localities choose to have thier elections and other polling issues at the same location and time as the official Federal elective polling process.. fine. But no Fed. elections should be contaminated by any state or local encumberances.

In this case, two voting tickets wold be given to each registered and qualified voter for access to stand in line for the two seperate voting booths.

Since the Federal ballot would be so much simpler than the previously combined ballots, it would prevent voter disenfranchisement at the federal ballot level by having to stand in long lines, with much longer average times for voters needing to make their selectons and cast thier votes for a minimum of one candidate, to a maximum of 3 candidates, depending on the presidency and senatorial elective cycles.

Ballots such as the old IBM punch-cards would then be sufficient, and can be easily voter-verified after selection and punching before placing in the ballot box. Easy to scan for quick tallies and easy to handcount, in the case of a contested accounting.

I cannot imagine a more effective way to run a streamlined Federal election, which is more tamper-resistant as well as incompetance-resistant.

States should not be held hostage to the particular election processes of other states when it comes ot our Federal elective office official polling.

IN this Democracy, we should not only expect the most effective and Honest means to elect our public officials, but our Democracy should DEMAND it.

Bob Ney helped create the american housing bubble as I have posted here before. His legislation set us up for what is now happening to the stock market. The financial stocks are crumbling pulling hedge funds and who knows what else, like Diebold, down with it.

Its faux news and a faux economy. Bush must have planned for it to come down a bit later, because it is clear to see that the republicans produced the bubble by legislating the out of control bubble.

Bush was involved in the great savings and loan fiasco in the early 90's too. He hangs with the bubble crowd.

"in direct contradiction to Diebold's statement on its website, Bowen's independent study of Diebold's voting system source code [PDF] for the Diebold Accuvote TSx touch-screen system, referred to above, found otherwise that ballots were not "scrambled" and thus were easily identifiable to Election Officials who want to find out how you may have voted.

The UC scientists found that, "Both the electronic and paper records of the Diebold AV-TSX contain enough information to compromise the secrecy of the ballot," and that "the AV-TSX records votes in the order in which they are cast, and it records the time that each vote is cast" making it "possible for officials to determine how individuals voted.""

I believe that is in violation of probably several state's laws regarding the secrecy of the ballot, that any system used in the state must insure individual ballots cannot be traced back to the voter. Systems that cannot, cannot be certified.

Maybe some AG's in the states should get moving, look at their laws, and perhaps bring suit to get state's money back for misrepresentation?

Besides investigating who in the Secretary of State's office- at the time- granted certification to those machines...